Yes, you are right, why doesn't the porn industry get the same subventions as the crop industry.
How dares the executive to set priorities, instead of spreading the money equally amongst men.

Maybe equal protection has nothing to do with it?

> Both 43B (1) (a) and (b) are applicable.

Those sections are referring to disclosure, not "acquiring" information. As paragraph (c) points out, illegal acquired information is not
covered.

> Here you go.

Well, that is fairly damning and hardly a moment of glory for the people involved. I have to give you that point.
But fortunately, I can still retreat to ad hominem.

> > Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?

> The emails referenced in the above link are subject to FOIA requests. Deleting them is a felony.

You keep re-iterating it. I fail to see it written in law.

> Given the title of the leaked file, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower was tasked with complying with an FOIA request, and when that request was denied leaked the information compiled to comply with it anyways. And quite rightly so, both as a matter of honour and a matter of law.

Hardly, because if the request was denied, they are de jure not subject to FOIA request.
So it is not within his rights to release the mail. That is why the police is investigating that person, instead of the scientists.

Actually, no. Simply thought experiment: What would happen, if you requested your professors correspondence?
Personal communications are exempt under Section II, 40, as they are protected by the Data Protection Act 1998,
which overrules FOIA as explicitly stated in several places.

Let me reiterate, the FOIA is a personal right in your relation to a public authority, not a person.
There is no contradiction in the fact, that a public authority is composed by private persons, it simply makes it more difficult to
separate those to.

> Actually, it was neither.

Strangely enough, the BBC refers to i stolen. The police has been informed and is investigating. Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.

> In fact, *not* revealing it would be a crime!

Hardly, there is no legal requirement to publish ones personal communication, unless there is a court order.

> There is quite clear evidence [...]

I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts, instead of half-baked assertion.

> evade the requirements of the FOIA

Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?

> that is a felonious activity, to conceal your knowledge of it is the crime of misprision.

The FOIA is a law pertaining the legal rights of a person in relation to a public authority. I am intrigued, where you derive the legal framework from for judging a person working there. Enlighten me, by pointing out the name of the passed law, and the section.

Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators, which in turn would make not publishing it not a crime. The right against self-incrimination is fairly well established.

I followed you up to this point:

> Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.

Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.

Concerning the effect of assumed counter-measurements against climate change, I am astonished, that you can claim to know the economical impact, as at least to my knowledge, economic models are several orders less reliable than climate models, as recent events may indicate.

Care to share your insight, which seems to exceed that of the tree huggers at McKinsey's?

> But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.

Sorry, that is only an ad hominem argument.
A scientist is always challenged by that problem, regardless whether one is politically active or not:
You can try to leave out important data to make your methods look more successful or your results more exciting.
It happened in the past even if it was not the topic of current events in probably any scientific field.

And why do we know about it? Because other people will scrutinise the results, and the higher the impact of the results, the more scrutinising people will be.

Finally: I'd argue all went down, when people left politics to the politicians.
Since when did it become unappropriate for educated persons to act for a change in the field they are actually experts in.
Leave it to the politician, yeah, great idea.

> not a big fat swastika but some more obscure symbols. [...]
> I know I wouldn't stand for it. I recognize the horrors of my own country and we will forever keep things like slavery and repression in general in front and center of our attention -- a mandatory history lesson -- so that we never repeat those mistakes.

Actually, it was a Swastika.
The SS insignia are hardly obscure, especially to Germans, because they learned about those symbols in school in mandatory history lessons, which you so kindly suggested.

May I point out a certain point of the law, which might have slipped your eye:

(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

> Quite simply the USA's Founding Fathers didn't mean for "general welfare" to be used to get around the limits of the Constitution.

The USA's founding fathers are hardly homogeneous bunch of people, which almost makes "what the founding fathers meant" almost a moot point, especially if you simply refer to one or two people.
For the moment, let's disregard that and have a look at your quotes.

The problem is, we were arguing about what the limitations of the Constitution are. Thomas Jefferson's only states, that universal rights granted in the constitution should not be constructed to circumvent specific limits imposed. For example, signing an international treaty, which abolishes Habeas corpus. The spending and taxing clause, however, is a fairly specific clause, it states how the Congress may attain money, and for what reasons. So, can you provide a similar specific law, which actually limits congress from enacting such a law?

From my understanding, James Madison is not arguing against general welfare, or levying taxes for that purpose, but the actual execution of welfare through the federal level:

> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare [...]

Congress is not actually meant to spend the money directly, without check and balances. Probably, from his point of view, the states should take care of the actual spending.
But he is actually one of the people, which were for a more limiting meaning of the law. For a different point of view, may I refer to Alexander Hamilton.

> Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine?

Section 8, powers of the congress, first sentence: General welfare.

People learn from mistakes, smart people learn from other people's mistakes.

I find it always depressing, when my government tries to come up with its own plan and doesn't bother to have a look how other nations did it.
That is either ignorance, arrogance or misplaced pride.

> EU Parliament tried to do something about Berlusconi, but the parties on the right blocked all declarations on the subject.

The liberal party block tried a issue a statement which reprimanded the lack of freedom of expression in Italy due to the Berlusconi imperium.
What would the effects of that be, and what had that to do with the pending legal proceedings of Mr Berlusconi, besides the person himself?
Nothing and none.

> Who did you vote?

As long it isn't Berlusconi, what would it matter?

> The EU is more then just the economic union it was meant to be.

It never was meant to be just an economic union, the economic union was just a mean to an end. Just read the Schuman Declaration.
The economic union was a mean to an end: To craft a political union, which would render war in Europe impossible.

> Berlesconi was not chastised for his many crimes.

Berlusconi is subject to Italian law. Should he not prosecuted, it would hardly an argument against the overreaching powers of the European Union.
Besides, his immunity has been overturned

> Of course, if they'll just use the profiles part of bluetooth spec and change the physical radio interface to 802.11...well, I guess you could do that, but what's the point?

The Bluetooth SIG already coopted WiFi as an alternate media Here you go. The point is, you get the bandwidth of WiFi for free.

> Except for all those aptitude tests showing that males are just better at spatial reasoning and higher math then women.

All those? AFAIK, there is one. It shows that males at that time of test grown up in that particular society performed better than their female counterparts. Those tests fail to separate cultural and social influence from biological ones.
Thanks for bringing up math as a "biological" example, as it has recently become a female dominated field in many nations, including the US.

> Further I believe you will find that all those low paying fields have another thing in common (besides being dominated by women): They are fucking brain dead easy [...] By the time they (formerly girls now women) realize they will be paying their own bills its just too late to start applying themselves.

Do I understand you correctly, that you want to imply that girls/women tend to be less focused future job prospects? Strangely enough, I've read quite the opposite reasoning for the female dominance high-school and higher education in general.

> nobody complains about sexism in HHD - they just accept the fact few men are interested in that field.

Have you had a look at the salaries in those fields dominated by women? The reason, why people tend to complain about sexism on male dominated fields is because it means severe financial
disadvantages.
That no one complains about it, doesn't mean that no one consider it sexism. The fact is, it is. Men choosing to such fields are likely to be ridiculed, and how is that not sexism. But no one complains, because they will likely tend to work as sub-par engineers, earning more than the average visitor of HHD.

> That's life not sexism, just the same way men can't give birth which is also not sexism.

The same way women can't choose their husband, do business, or do vote, drive a car, fight in a war, go to university, study math and science, and finally engineering.
Do you see any tendency?

All of the above have been claimed to be "naturally" a male domain, while in truth it only has been one traditionally.

Biology can certainly explain, why men can't give birth. But you will most certainly fail utterly to find any scientific reason, why women should not perform comparable to men in engineering.